ML19210B904
| ML19210B904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1979 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Laudig S LAUDIG, S. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19210B905 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-79-239 NUDOCS 7911130020 | |
| Download: ML19210B904 (2) | |
Text
U pmic4cW
~~
....s$
UNITED STATES
)
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'% * * * * * #[
November 5, 1979 Docket Nos. 50-546 and 50-547 Stephen Laudig. Esquire Suite 815-816 445 N. Pennsylvania Street IN RESPONSE REFER Indianapolis, IN 46204 TO F01A-79-239
Dear Mr. Laudig:
This supplements our previous letter to you dated July 9,1979, and is in further response to your letter dated June 22, 1979, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, access to all information submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning or related to the construction or operation of the nuclear generating facility at Marble Hill near Madison, Indiana.
Copies of the documents listed in Appendix A are enclosed (total 354 pages) and copies are also being placed in both the NRC Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, and in the NRC Local Public Document Room (LPDR) located in the Madison-Jefferson County Public Library, 420 West Main Street, fiadison, Indiana.
Please note that while documents 30 through 49 in Appendix A are not specifically within the scope of your request, they contain information relating to construction problems at Marble Hill and copies are enclosed.
This completes action on your reouest.
Si cer ly,
' / s&
/'
/ J. M. Felton, Director
(
Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated 7911130 O AO 1318 001
F01A-79-239 cvy mwd.
APPENDIX A l.
6/29/79 Latter fm J. Coughlin to Region III (1 pg) 2.
6/29/79 Letter fm J. Eyed to H. Denton (13 pgs) 3.
7/3/79 Letter fm Senator R. Lugar to Chairman Hendrie (1 pg) 4.
7/11/79 letter fm Senator W. Ford to Chaiman Hendrie (2 pgs) 5.
7/13/79 Letter fm J. Keppler to Public Service of Indiana (3 pags) 6.
7/26/79 Letter fm Cong. E. Hillis to Chairman Hendrie (1 pg) 7.
7/27/79 Letter fm J. Eyed to H. Denton (2 pgs) 8.
7/28/79 Letter fm S. Shields to D. Mcdonald (2 pgs) 9.
7/30/79 Letter fm S. Shields to R. Johnson (1 pg) 10.
7/31/19
' Letter fm S. Shields to R. Johnson (3 pgs) 11.
8/1/79 Letter fm Cong. J. Myers to Chariman Hendrie (1 ag)
- 12. 8/2/79 Lette.r fm S. Shields to R. Johnson (7 pgs) 13.
8/3/79 Letter fm Senator Staffor et al. to Chairman Hendrie (3 pgs)
- 14. 8/6/79 Letter fm S. Shields to ASME (1 pg) 15.
8/10/79 Letter fm R. Schroeder to President Carter (2 pgs)
- 16. 8/23/79 Letter fm R. Stephens to V. Stello (2 pgs)
- 17. 8/30/79 Letter fm S. Shields to ASME (1 pg)
- 18. 8/31/79 Letter fm S. Shields to V. Stello (2 pgs) 19.
9/1/79 Letter fm J. Eyed to V. Stello (16 pgs) 20.
9/4/79 Letter fm T. Dattilo to Region III (2 pgs) 21.
9/4/79 Letter fm G. Mouser to NRC (1 pg) 22.
9/7/79 Letter fm Cong. T. Moffet to Chairman Hendrie (2 pgs) 23.
9/19/79 Letter fm Cong. T. Moffet to Chairman Hendrie (2 pgs) 24.
9/21/79 Letter fm Cong. T. Moffet to Chariman Hendrie (1 pg) 25.
9/28/79 Letter fm Cong. R. Nazzoli to Chairman Hendrie (2 pgs) 26.
10/9/79 Letter fm S. Shields to J. Keppler (22 pgs)
- 27. Undated Letter fm M. Lewis to Commissioner Bradford (1 pg) 28, 6/12/79 Letter fm T. Dattilo to H. Denton (1 pg) 29.
9/4/79 Letter fm T. Dattilo to NRC (1 pg) 30.
6/14/79 PN0-79-155 (1 pg) 31.
6/22/79 PNO-79-182 (1 pg) 32.
7/10/79 PNO-79-182A (2 p s).
33.
7/20/79 PNO-79-272(1pg PNO-79-283 (1 pg) 34.
7/26/79
- 35. 8/1/79 PNO-79-299 1 pg 36 8/7/79 PNO-79-309 1 pg) 37.
8/16/79 PNO-79-342 2 pgs)
- 38. 8/21/79 PNO-79-357 (2 pgs) 39.
8/24/79 PNO-79-364 (1 pg) 40.
9/18/79 IE Report No. 50-546/79-07; 50-547/79-07 (33 pgs) 41.
9/25/79 IE Report No. 50-546/79-09; 50-547/79-09 (21 pgs) 42.
7/25/79 Letter fm G. Fiorelli to Public Service of Indiana with IE Report No. 50-547/79-10; 50-547/79-10 dtd 7/23/79 (10 pgs) 43.
10/3/79 IE Report No. 50-546/79-11; 50-547/79-11 (74 pgs) 44.
8/29/79 Letter fm G. Fiorelli to Public Service of Indiana with IE Report No. 50-546/79-13; 50-547/79-13 dtd 8/28/79 (5 pgs) 45.
9/11/79 Letter fm G. Fiorelli to Public Service of Indiana with IE Report No. 50-546/79-12; 50-547/79-12 dtd 9/10/79 (5 pgs)
- 46. 8/23/79 Letter fm J. Keppler to Public Service of Indiana with IE Report No. 50-546/79-14; 50-547/79-14 dtd 8/22/79 (5 pgs)
- 47. 9/6/79 Letter fm G. Fiorelli to Public Service of Indiana with IE Report No. 50-546/79-15; 50-547/79-15 dtd 9/6/79 (5 pgs) 48, 9/17/79 IE Report No. 50-546/79-16; 50-547/79-16 (67 pgs)
- 49. 9/24/79 IE Report No. 50-546/79-18; 50-547/79-18 (17 pgs) 1318 002
blo 3kb5Lb~> C&f L
hAyd h
STEPHEN LAUDIG Attorney at Law 445 N. Pennsylvania St. Seite 815-816 Admitted to the Bar of.
Indianapolis, IN 46204 State of Indiana 317-632-2999 State of !!Iinois EREEDOM OF INFORMATION
. ACI REQUESI for A-79-339 June 22, 1979 gcj,7 c Director Freedom of Information Act Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20350 RE:
Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Sir / Madam:
Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.
S.
C.
552, I am requesting access to all information sub-mitted to your agency by any corporation, partnership, group, or individuals concerning or related to the construction or operation of the nuclear generating facility at Marble Hill near Madison, Indiana.
I am making this request on behalf of several individuals who are concerned about the safe construction and operation of the facility.
As you know, the act permits you to reduce or waive fees when the release of the information is considered as "primarily benefitting the public."
I believe that this request fits that category and I, therefore, ask that you waive any fees.
If all or any part of this request is denied, please cite the specific exemption which you think justifies your refusal to release the information, and inform me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law.
I would appreciate your handling this request as quickly as possible and I look forward to hearing from you within 10 days, as the law stipulates.
Additionally, if there is a substantial amount of material s
and there exists an index to this material, I would appreciate access to the index.
Sincerely, O
LAM okp SL:rl Stephen Laudig 1318 003
o.
j8 The SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY k
of LAWRENCE - GREENE - MONROE - BROWN -
1 MORGAN & OWEN COUNTIES
'~
~_
,... - /,o
=
{1 7
...u.
p
~
~
y Ju=e 29, 1979
~
- P s
1 h '. m
\\
\\
UNITED SIATES CF AMIP.ICA, NGCLEAR RiXELTCHI CQO!ISSIGN TO: Earold R. Ecston, Director Office of Nmlear Reactor Regulation RE: Public Service TmHam, Inc.
)
(Marble Hill Ihelear Generatir.g Station,
}
Docket Nos. SIE 50-546 IInits 1 & 2
)
50-547 A REOUEST TO SUS?5D AND RE7CKE CONSTRUCTIO'i ?ETET AND TO REC?H SHEIT HERIN3S ON M!LRBIS FTTL NUCIZ.AR GENERATING STATION The Sassafras Audubcn Society petitions the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Nuclear Regulatory Com=ission's Esgulations to suspend and : evoke the const:uction license for Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Sta' Mn, Units 1 & 2, and reopen safety hearings en said facility.
l'.aj e.
envirc=certal, health, a=d safety concerns relatite to the construction ard operation of Marble Hill have developed si=ce iss"a~e of the construction license.
These concerns have either not been addressed, or addressed superfic4='17, at pre-vicus hearigs, by the Final Environ =e=tal Impact Statement, the Pre'i
- " ry Safe-ty analysis Repo-t, the Enviro:= ectal Report-Cperating License Stage, and the Fi=al Safety A "'ysis Report.
Accordi=g to the decision of the U.S. Court of 4 peals, District of Colu=bia, regardd g section 126(a) of the Atc=ic Energy ac and section 50.100 of 10 CFR f
in ?t. Pierce Utilities v. United States of A-aries. and the lhelear Regulatory Co-* =sion, newly revealed envirec=c=tal, health, and safety proble=s constitute v 'dd grou=ds for a post-const:nction licensi=g reviev "under evolv:.=g licensing stse-ds, rather than u= der the sts"<'a-ds applicable een the lice =se vas issued",
and for asking the Euclear Regulatory Cc==ission o suspend and revoke a const:m-tien pe:=it.
We seek to be heard at a nee ;ful pc d
is in an early stage of const:ncticn, as to whether conti=ued constructien d
))}h qp4 suspensien of the construction license DUPLICATE DOCUMENT
__ u ing consideratien cf p^'4e conce_ s, "ar und the clocka, 24 hou s-a-day, 7 Ent. ire document previously vould constitute justice denied.
entered into system under:
1 ANO
-sppendu.:1 No. of pages:
n..~ ~. - ~~~s muw...-
.r m a.m manen<.ua i ~ ~
h e, % %. -
= - * = = = * * = = =
" - " =
- 9JCnifcb Siceles Scm:Le
~ ~"" C.
m~
.m 48 M Caen M Panunsd.C July 3,1979
-:; :M.
- 5.-u e y-w.. : n -- 2.s % c s:
Tne Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chair =an Nuclear Regulatory Coranission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Hendrie:
I have been info : red of 'the agreement cutually arrived at between your' agency's representatives and Public Service of Indiana with
'. respect to the c =pany's Marble Hill power plant, z.nd I am writing to state ~ry support for what seems an eminently sourd decision.
In particular, the h?,C has behaved resconsibly in rejecting proposal '-
which would have stopped work at ths. piant altogether and inf7icted econocic hardships on large nunbers of Hoosiers.
Instead, you have fe:used your attention solely on the allecations regarding the concrete-work and have ob ained from PSI comnitments to take a number of iraortant steps aimed at insuring all parties that the construction work at Parble Hill conforms to the very highest standards.
I applaud the reasonibleness of the NPC's methods and judgment in this mitter.
Guessing that you have received fewer ca...pliments than vo;; cay have earned of late, I wanted to make certain to express my view:oint to you.
Sincerely,
' sf WW Richard G. Lugar RG'.: n=t D
s/ '
?
\\N'gg 1318 W
y.
-. ~ --- -[.;.~.....,
~
w-IN.L.I. H. IroftD "
~'
y.
es narrruxa.
N COndMEMCE. SC!DeCE
'~-~~
AND TPLANSPCerTAT1Cet ENERGY AND h /.-
i.f.
91Cnifeb SIcles Senafe
- ^ " " ^ ' "
n.
['
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20310
=
ADM LNISTMATION
.__C.-
^-
a 47uly ll, 1979 E
9..-243: z5.(.h..,.,,.p._. gg fi
. ~ -
._,-Qc 4 -
1___
=E p :.., a -.4
.:=-
c.- m m. 5,.
.. e... :. : -..t ot.
~
- -+
2 d.
. 'fc Q:
i zu
Dear.Mr. Chairman:
= ~~--
Evenithough you cannot respond to this letter because it con-cerns a subject on which you may be asked to sit in adjudication,
,' = -
I am, nevertheless, addressing this correspondence to your personal i~=
attention 3so that you can be aware of several new developments re-E=
garding the Marble Hill situation which I find to be unsettling.
Let me first say that I have intent onally refrained from 55-commenting on your' agency's response to the charges of construction -
M _-
quality problems at Marble Hill in order not to interfere with, or Er impede, the progress of the on-going investigation..
Yesterday, your r
office advised me that the investigation was expected to take at
- r. :.-
==
.least three more weeks, but I am writing now because of developments E.
in recent days which seem to be inconsistent with my June 14 reques*--
and your subsequent assurance--of a full investigation.
I've always been of the opinion that anytime you smelled smoke, if you looked hard enough, you could usually find a fire.
- However, your agency's recent actions have directly conflicted with that theory
.e Inspectors from your agency have determined that many of the allegations of improper construction are indeed correct.
More than
=-9 500 air pcckets already have been discovered in the plant's two
- - 3 reactor-centainment buildings, and of these, at least 120 are said to have been improperly repaired.
Despite the mounting evidence
.29 that the problems could be.much greater than originally expected,
' "~=
the NRC has given the contractor and Public Service of Indiana per-
=Iri_ -
mission to resume construction in safety-related structures.
Your FEEE staff has explained to me in detail the terms under which constiuc-EEE =
tion was allowed to resume, and I am in no position to argue the 1~~;-
merits of the new quality-control standards.
E~En -
Y EEE -
However, I can tell you this.
Given the mounting evidence.
which justifies allowing the continuation of any construction
, g '
~~?Z that substantial problems do exist, I cannot name one good reason
_..... Z--
activities involving the safety-related structures at this site ZZ:Z until your investigation is finished.
- 7 i N
A
'] h !-
h;. ;.. :
(t y_..r 2.
OtSTRrCT OF1ril" 3 L Z~-
nas wau.zm aviasse m.c Neer rezew, sus.o e to um pos r om:r ase erasmcumc xs ruscnu.aunamen LzasessTom. Kastt1JorY 40804 LausraJ.K. puerrucnv dc2:2 CtmusTom. KorrtexT diet t Ownesmasc. Korrucc? 42301 Lane) zzz-as4 (soz) as24zst (sos) ast-rats (so:) ses.stse C";_-
~
-- ~
~
Page 2 July 11, 1979 t-- __
Consideriig Ohat id;.atI~Atake here--the. basic safety of~a-
_1.
~~ '
^
T nuclear facil.ity-no precaution can be too great if.the public in-terest is to be protected.
Other factors, no matter how urgent or compelling, should not be issigned a higher priority'than safety,
.T and quite frankly, I do not feel that the public presently feels that this is the NRC's primary concern..If the objective of your ~~
~
investigation is to be fulfilled and if the public's concerns are' to be resolved, your agency's every activity must have the support-
___r and confidence of the public.
{-
I can assure you that if the NRC fails to satisfactorily address the concerns that have been raised in a complete manner,
~~
I will not besitate to schedule a public hearing before the full Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve and
~~f-take testimony under oath from all the principals who are involved
=7.-
in this investigation.
The only factor that could compel su;h a
~~3 hearing to be held would be for your agency not-to carry out its
_ _ ~
responsibilities to the fullest, and I am sure you realize that.
Sincerely,
\\ l.4A.
Yp J
The Ho_norable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building 1717 H Street, N.W.
~~"
Washington, D.C.
20555 1318 W b*
g.=
t=E..E W
-e.a
" ~1. :-~ :
- ~.:...
l::C i+..e...
e si.
- ~ * -
...C.
-L.
N
- 4
'r.4 UNITED STATES E b* 4
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
REGION 111 no noossvstT noAo g
oten sLtyn,ILLINOls 6907 JUL 131979
..m.'
~ }.;
--[-~.
- _~
~
y Docket No. 50-456
~
Docket No. 50-457 I
~
~~
Public Service of Indiana ATIN:
Mr. S. W. Shields Vice President - Electric Systems 1000 East Main Street Plainfield, IN 46168 Gentlemen:
This refers to the meetings beld at the Marble Hill construction site ao June 29, and July 7,1979, between Mr. R. M. Brown and representatives of Publi: Service of Indiana, Newberg-Marble Hill and Sargent and I.nndy Engineers and D. V. Hayes, C. C. Villiams and others of m:y staff.
This also refers to the meeting held in the Region III office on July 10, 1979. between you and I and members of my staff.
The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the status of:
(1) the upgraded progran for the control of concrete activities, (2) your " overview" program for concrete activities, and (3) your examination and testing program to confirm existing concrete quality.
Based on our review of your upgraded program and its implemestation in connection with portions of the Rad-Waste building and the Unit 2 Turbine building. we have concluded that the conditions outlined in Ite=s 3 and 4 of our lacediate Action Letter (IAL) dated Jc:tt 27, 1979, have been met.
~'
As diseassed in the July 7,1979, meeting, placement of concrete for
~
safety related structures may resume with the following understanding:
1.
The PSI "ove view" program for concrete work will be fully implemented as uiscussed with you and as outlined in y ur letter to us dated July 3, 1979.
2.
The examination and testing program-discussed in Ites 1 of the IAL will be cospleted expeditiously.
3.
!dentified deficiencies will be evaluated in terms of their i= pact on the current concrete placement program.
l/
i aw-
JUL 131979 Public Service of Indiana 2-e.
4 No concrete vill be placed or other work perfor:ced that vill coverup or otherwise prevent access to previously placed concrete relative to the surface and "olumetric c.zamination program.
M In regard to the PSI "ov :rview" program it is our understanding that all PSI " hold points" discua ed in the Newberg-Marbie Hill letter to PSI e
dated June 28, 1979, wil'.~ apply until adequate confidence that.luture concrete activities will iontinue to meet requirements is established to the antisfaction of PSI and the NRC. Further, FSI quality control personnel will inspect all Category I concrete placement areas to verify requirements have been met. The PSI inspections are to be conducted after Newberg QC has accepted the area, but prior to placement of _ concrete.
PSI QC personnel are also to be present full-time at all-Category I pours to verify adequate contractor QC involvement and to assure proper placement and consolidation of the concrete.
Concerning Items 1 and 2 of..;r IAI, involving the testing and evaluation of-' existing concrete we have concluded that:
1.
Our initial review of your identification and evaluation of concrete repairs indicates it is not yet sufficiently comprehensive.
2.
The adequacy of the preparation of concrete defective areas (honeycomb) for repair and the procedure and material in making some of the repairs continue to remain unresolved at this time.
3.
Your prograo for acquiring and evaluating test data has not been fully developed and approved.
As discussed with you during our meeting on July 10, 1979, we understand that additional and comprehensive efforts will be made to assure all repaired areas are identified, that all material vill be removad from the repaired areas and the repairs be redone. We note that some repairs were made with adequate QC coverage and are not in questb n.
Verification of the adequacy of these repairs will be made on an ir.dividual basis with both PSI and the XRC concurring in the resolution.
Further, the NRC is to be notified in advance of the removal of material and rerepair so we may elect to witness the activicy. It is not intended that repairs made for cosmetics, such as tie holes be redone.
It is also our u=derstanding that your activities for acquiring and evaluating test data relative to existing concrete is to be fully documented and controlled in accordance with your QA progran with each major responsi-bility relative to the involved organizations being identified.
0**lD
- lD 'll \\ h
_MeM h\\L 01B noo e
e, em em e
YELLO WHLE Co Public Service of Indiana El13 N
~
Please inform us if your undefstanding of the items discussed in this letter is different from that stated.
- =
Sincerely, James G. Ieppler Director ec: Mr. R. M. Brown, Construction Project Superintendent
' cc:v/1tr dtd 7/3/79:
Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & EscRae
]g*'j}g *}D"9'Y J_ o J Ju sju S..k o
k11 1
RI
(
g yes/sr
's Fiorelli
'Norel us Kepp er Schweibin:
~7'l1-7f 7/12/79 1318 01"
Con est of e Mittb tbtattG
~--
"rta zPwsocs c:3-441 NS AT7*A.1PS ON b
b
.-g wgyr y7w w
,N a..w TaLzruzac. E ^ ^-
e.
i C3uJ N 3 ptt?" Joe -a M rw M hN cs L'GRc7 AND dry.'stc*odNT
" ' " - ~ ' * " * ^
J u'~ v. 26 1979 9
w a r.M w,
,p.
- ~
- I Mr. Joseph M. Hendrie Chh==,
Nuclear Regulatory Cor-4ssion '
WasMngton, D.
C.
20555 Dear Mr. Chair== M As the Representative of the 5th District of Indiana, ari area that is served by Public Service Indiana, I have s==e serious concern in' regard to the Marble Eill Nuclear Plant now under construction.
i an as concerned about the safety of this plant as anyone.
However, I an also concerned that it be completed in a t'raly fashion.
The power that will be generated from this plant will be urgently needed'by my area in the 19 80 's.
I an, of course, aware of. some of the problems that have arisen in regard to the construction and I join with others in. u-ging that all steps be taken to see that the plant is
' safely.
Eowever, I also urge you most strongly that no steps be taken to s:cp all construction.
In my opinion, such a s:e: is not called for at this time because there is no
@ to th'e public.
- ny deficiencies in the construction of the plant should. be caught and corrected but I feel this could be done by proper inspection and direction to the owner of the plant and its contractor.
I Oc stop all construction would be overkin and is not justified k by -he-f :ns.
Sincerelv, s
~
.'. \\
~
pr o 9 9
3
,r m
0 f lu e j
6 Ilwood E.
"3ud" Eillis Q
-(,
o 0
Menber of Congress
.r-Aug 9.
7/27.. Tc EDO 'or Prepare reply for signature of EDO.
Date due Cc=n:
79-2187 03C, Orig to Docket, OCA to Ack... Logged Ex Parte.
Oir rikticn:
1318 N1
w-l
[ o '.
OSS\\ C4
._,_.2.-
_v n_o.
., ~..
m,.,.n,,.~,,...
n m
~7
- -.. ~,.
m
~. m t~" %. 7. ~."' ~ " "
7.jCniIcb hics Mencric s.[
-her, CDh4641TTCb tJN MMYlftONMEN1" AND PUE.I lc WQ.staC 3
.py rea
__]
WASPflNCTON. D.C. 20310
[
E'bD
- w. -
August 3, 1979
,p Mr. -Joseph M. Hendri e Ch a.i rpian U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor.D i " 'on Was h t.r.st.n, P.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Recent disclosures of const.ruction deficiencies in safety-related structur.es and systems at tne Marble Hill Muclear power plant in 'Tndiana raise serious ouestions chout the sa-fe construction of the facility.
We are al so conee rned that the problems encountered at Marble Hill may raise =2.jor issues regarding nuclear power plant construction g enerc l.ly.
ke3 thereE:re wish to be kept fully and currently infor=..=d of he facts s,urreunding construction at Marble Hill so when the Subeccmit tee en.;'u-l ear Regulntion of the Cen:'.it :ee o n Env iro ne:ent 2nd Public Works can conduct thorough ret.*ie.-
a ef ihe matter.
In addition to the Co=.i s sion ensurinc tha t our sth.r r i e. regu.larl y briefed by the Commis sier. staff'c ncv der:1cpcents,
pir;tcolarly before any r e g u..s ec ry a c t. ; orTLQ.Te - by-tne C,o,varss lort.
We request tha vou provide us ' lith the icile ing
- .rrrorrta u on:
- 1. The extent to which the Commission reviewed the qus.lity-assurance / quality-control org ani:stiona l f-pTOC6durts of,the IIcense; ut the re. d., ck e t in g IIC stage and at t.te cons t ructi en - p e rmi t st2ge, and t h e (c.ur.i s s.r.c n ' s asses.inent o f_ thes e-crocednIe5.?
at the tinc the construction Dermit Was issued.
- . The utent to which the Conmission rei-i ewed, prior I.M.
.o.issunuce.of.t.he c en s t_r_u e:.i o.n_p e rn i.t the capabill:les of the utility to manage the cer r: ac. tion of the plant, and the findings of that review.
g/7,41.b.TheCer=ission'spresent assessment cf the utility's HI' '
A const.uction-management c a p ab e.1:.t z e s.
e
!/
i,
/
'r
\\
.ow
\\{
~
1318 P '
//
_Atf~bpr-
~
.?
- 4. The extont to which the Conniusion reviewed the Marble Hill construction company's capabilities "c Y Igg,(.
and.ous.ific,ntions to build a nuclear clan
- orier 3" y to ssuing tne construction permit, and the findings of that review.
\\ N M '.
/
\\ w ~~ ' I w
' 5. The frequency and the nature of the Commission's TJT inspection c: construction in progress at Marble Hill.
I'
. The reason the Cor. mission did not place a residoni N T '
4-inspector at the Mar.le Hill site when the utili ts-4 '*
requested one.
g.
- 7. Pres.ent Of fice.of Mana ge:nen.t.and Budget guidance p m. o.
r
- .s
.ene m o:=u.v..slon on :ne suoyeat or resiaent
$$lg inspectors, and how t:.i s gui dance ma.y have af f ec ;.ed the decision not to place an inspector at the Marble 11111 site.
?. The extert to which the Connissio.
reviewed W.Tractural arrangements between the MarM e Hill
,,f 4.m censee zi and its contractors., and an as sessr:ent i
the impact these ar rsnge.:c n ts have on the e n.cli ts g/
9nd the safeyr of the p2 ant, including the arre t c.. ; :: xed-:::.ce cent rae b have had on the qual;.:y o I COr.structi or.
The extent to whl h the Com.nission e:: amines the g
,gf., A Construction practi ces of S.
ut.il i ty citiring 17.3 re view 0: an operDTing license appli;ar.icn.
If.
."h e r e:r.e di e s available to the Co=.ission when it
/I un0cV.:rs deficiencies of the kind disclosed at
'iar'.-lc Hill, ll. The T-le o f the h*ational Bor.rd of Eoiler and Pressur
./6 4)y p r o t c ;.:w., e Ve s s e l i n. s ra e c.t. o r s. i n t h e C or.
G n b, 013!1:.1CatlOn ot-the eTtent Ic ingS which the Commission s.ccepts their +nspectiens or durlicates then.
g
- 11. All d0Cuments relating :C crimina'
cgations g j7 regarding construction deficiencie8 at Marble
...,1.
111
- 13. The re0!-on Construction was allowed 50 continue [
int. July 2ven th.%n honeyecnbing was known to
,A'- {.A4
-.se necarring as e a r.L ; as April, G)I WB ne
d 3'3'~
~
s s
s 14..
The apparent recsons for the breakdmm it. the g
j/.%
a.uclity-assuranec/cuality-control procedures at tnt site.
12.
.iny affidavits in the possession of :he Corraission p/p3 '7, fror2 Marble Hill construction workers relating g
to 1nrormat2on noout cons truc tion pr.n..lcms.
/ % Ic.
- he hiring practices of Marble Hill. construction centractcrs and the c-tent to which verkers DT expe ri enced in nucle.=.r f acility con:: tru:
en were sougn out and e:llized by the contrac rs.
17.
The inspection trar:tices used by th= con rneter cnd the utility"and the e. stent to v'sich :ne NRC Sf-M
- Ta:.ns non-t.or.mns on inspe: ors and' approver.
n 1r.ar.netion rethods used by them.
6n.4..,.
.c q. l..;. c.
. n,._..,..
..._,0....- e,. 3 c..s i.
u.
,vu.
$s
.,6 i ','Orrz.:.On le forwarded.O, us bithin th*o WechG tif T he 2 0.t.e
..e 4, 5 ---....:.
r n
- Truly,
/,...
(/
c-s.' f \\ \\]
~T~~
/
/
/* I e
j A \\
,).^F ~
32aau.qs f; -wM,*ai~4
\\
r
.. -p
.~ 1 q'y,s
~
s'..4.o '1.L.. s-t
\\ q.. e. s.t,
.J b
Z"'
.I.. n P. 4. ".. :' c
.. w s
.~
g
.%e e
., ~.. a,..c.,.'. s..r- [ ~,.. v w.,..
w.* u L. ~.a s..
4.
/
.a
~
/
g.
l
/.
J /I A ! Yli^Yf J
(
i s
i
- D.n Y....: :.Q 5 G D G3ry.W.2 F...nkir y. c_nbrity M:nber Chair-d.r.
50b c o. ni t t e e c.n
- .::c?.it:te en. Nuclear Nuclea r R+pul z ti on
..ee.a 3 -i on
/
J a')
/~
L';
r.
- i. 4l* e ml i
..%=-t :- f: L
.i nf)
_ W)#p
/e I
^
...d c_'-@. w.r.e.
.......u...
1318 01A
- 3. g 5}' I[iv62/h
/
The SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY of LeMRENCE. GREENE. MONRC E. BROWN -
,. M ',. /
?
C MORGAN S: OWEN COUNTIES
.i A.//- -'-
- s 9'.
-~
[(
g,:. 1
?.q :; '
' 1. '
(
%. x :c s
J '...R,\\ %
5
~..
July 27,1979
.s e,,
^
M-
. \\
em
,..9
,...1' Mr. Harold 2. Denten, Direct'or Office of Xuelear Reactor -Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co=aission Wa+i"gton, D.C, 20555-p b,
Dear Mr. Denton:
Ik4 = letter is conce:.=ed with the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel T rec., ors Re x.
of July 24,1979, to the 1:erican Society of hechanical Engineers (ASG), rec-- Ad g that iSMZ vithdrav Public Service T dis
's (PSI) Certificate of Authe-izatics for the const:uction of Marble Hill unlass the utility corrects
- -arous violations and procedures.
We have not been able to obtn4-a copy of the Reno-t as yet, but The Indit.nasoli:
5 tar news a-:Ma on%he Recort (July 25, 1979) included ~ y excerpts which we believe sufficie=t for the following recuest:
~
The Sassafras iniabon So:iety asks that the KRO consider the Recort~
of the Natio- ' 3 card of Boiler and Pressure Tessel Inspectors on videspread problens in qaality control and =ater s's bre'ing at d
Maicle C4'1, as part of the See, tion of our Petition of June 29, 1979, en:itled M22ICUI/~JS D!GIEE".IKG, OCliSIRUCTION, AND QU. GIT! ASSUFJ.NOE FCa FJ.RELS EII1?, as further grounds for our Request for Suspension and Revocatien of the Constraction Fernit and Eeopening of Safety Hearings en Mafcle F'1' Nuclear Generating Station.
We disagree with PSI that the inspection f4"di"5s are "=ere tee %4 ca14 ties, large.
n 17 :nvolv
? "pape:vork" ard "in no way affect the gaality or safety of the plant."
roor " attitudes" of Ma agenent toward construction standards can affect the safe construct'on of a M as well as the v:eng grade of cater 47 c.
PSI's deliberate flou:ing of constru: tion standards established to insure the safety of raclear plan:s c"-,t be 74"ssed by words about "=isunderstn de gn, or everything can n
ce ec re:ted satisfacto-ily", nor by the belief that "N" certification, however b*' ate d, v- " -ne everything right.
1'a=y questic s ~4 be answered as a M 4 *cn, a field.- e:rese:n,ative for DUPLICATE DOCUMENT.))b I,.
I Nuclear Ce-tificatien C -ittee has at least six weeks. PSI has said th Entire document previously
=id-e.ugust.
Since ?S, according to entered nt st der:
set the Eeactor 7essel in place in A ANO V
j ass.:ne t, an :ney nac no "-
- -an e_
7 prior to p a:enent cf the ?.eactor 7e No. of pages:
0 b
c,v.c.c s.
N. MYT.es
,. ~..
aus e:~ "
~
- ', ~.
==
=. r, =. s. a..s I's*.
- f IM.',
Was r-
.'O.C.
,i5 1 **
Tm. 2".:.:.::*,-E.S 25 q p,.~./.;'?
m x e =m :=.. v... z
- - := = :- :=
y 1CT 1"M.A.;. 9 r*%2 M
$.&e,.
- r yc e e i. ~ m a
lg'.r ~3 'jg
=, -
T-m-m'"
3-r.:r_
~:. u m
^~ C n.~3 '.P.P:a' n f. W.4,i e P4 r.t.f.Q S f.t.f..M;)
11 l
i.
e-.
v r-.
a
- ~r:
.K;gtfg! Of 5EPCENCillElibtn.
7
~.
'c-<
Ers~;m,e,t t, '3.C.
20515
/
August 1, 1979
- 15. Jestph M. Eendrie, Chair = *1 C. S. Nu: lear Regulato:f C: =issica e
Wa s'-4 g on,,D. C.
20355 Daar Cr.ai--- Eendrie:
I.is le::er is to e:cgress =y ccace: t about any soee by the NRC to stop a_1 ccustructi:n a: the F.arble Hill Nuclea: ?cuer Sta:ica site near Ya dis er, Ind'ia a.
'r aile I share your desire to extrine pctential sa.fety 7:::1c s and rasolve then whare necessary, I do not support a cenplete v :< s:appage.
'It a e:oncric and energy censequences cf such an action
~
vc 1d la severs, considering the cuploy ent level and cenpletion schedule
.- _ _.., _,,_. _ =..
vrs,
It is ry *. de 3 : atii33 t'.'.it 5C's iOvestiganica and evaluatiCa of the
- >e.,a,'i17 Q--.
- U,1 4.C c,
s._4 3.
e..
c w. e v. -
-J a o
C _........ a_C r
...,e...:
..w.w a.er.a s so d.=...
'..a.
. '.. =.co a-o#
-. _._ T_._. ;,. : s...
- - p 1_,. 4-y-..
. cr any pr:ble s and ~ :pe tha: they vill be expedi:icusly and satisfactorily ansre.ed bef oia any additicnal v:r'.<ers are forced of f the j:b.
I v:uld apprecia:e being kept info: ed of your activi:ies rich respect c Y a r':l e Ei ll.
Your decisicns vill be very inportan
- c Indiana and to
.._.r..
.. =. _..
._: u_.....e,.,. s.
~
c4ncerely, n
I
- " ;'A i
\\
4i o]D 31
(
y p fv
/
(
om D
S.
s\\
_n o
Ju y
.:o r.n..y er s V'y nl l
Is DUPLICATE DOCUMENT } } } h
'l ] I-Entire document previously AN No. of pages:
PUBLIC SERVICE INDIANA August 6, 1979 S. W. Shields Virs pressornt - E!ectric System
-t ASME 345 E. 47th Street New York, New York 10017 Attention: Mr. Gerry Eisenberg Secretary Gentlemen:
We have been asked by the Chief Inspector of the State of Indiana to make the following inquiry:
"Our ccmpany intends tc N Stamp piping cystems in accordance with the ASME Ccde,Section III, and has purchased material which will be used in those piping systems.
May we sub-contract Code material, such as welding and NDE, to an NPT Certificate Holder, without the NPT Certificate Holder being required to qualify us as a Material Supplier?"
We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible because our piping systems are currently under construction.
Very truly yours, SWS:cm cc: "D.J. Mcdonald, Natl. Bj. Boiler R.R. Johnson, State of Indiana
/W.G. Reirmuth, U.S. NRC Sciler & Pressure Vessel Board Victor Stello, Jr., U.S. NRC J.G. Xepoler, U.S. NRC A.W. Henry, Hartford Steam Boiler j3jg 117 Uldis Potapovs, U.S. NRC Arlene Nadafino, ASME
' C0 Ear ^.:am 5:y, Cormonwealth Edison Co.
E.J. Hem:: ee: ?'ami.e:c. Iniana 46:65 317,839.9611
Ro. ell. Sekroeder g g-Skylir. Drive, R. No. 3, Box 190 Floy$i. Eneb ladi.n. 47119 August 10, 1979 President]_u.y The Honorable Jiumy Cartary The W.ite House,.1600~Pernsylvania Ave. - 5 ;
i _th 1 Washington, D.C.
20500 SUBJ3CT: A taxpayer's request that federa' funds used to purchase 177. undivided ownership of Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plac (Jeff. Co., Indiana) be withdrawn
Dear Mr. President:
Your visit to l'entuckiana on July 31 was greatly
'reciated and will be long remem-bered.
One environmental issue which was called to your attention in this area was the Marble Hill nuclear facility being built on the Ohio River 31 miles upstream from Louisville, Ky.
by Public Service Indiana. Construction was stopped af ter workers (NOT the Nuclear Regu-latory Co==ission) discovered and reported faulty concrete work in the nuclear reactor con-tainment structures and auxiliary buildings in which 170 air pockets out of more than 500 detected lacked proper repairs.
These charges, verified by the NRC, prompted an investigation by the House Subcommittee
,on Snvironment, 2nergy and Natural Resources. Also underway is a probe by the Senate En-vironment and Public Uorks Coanittee of construction practices at the site. In addition, the U.S. Dept. of Justice has baen asked to determine if possible criminal charges are in-volved in that workers have stated that they were ordered to conceal concrete defects from inspectors at the 1:arble Hill plant.
It has now been determined by the lac that Public Service Indiana (PSI), who report-edly has already spent $430 sillion at 1;arble Hill, lacked adequate personnel with first-hand experience with nuclear energy on its staff and at the construction site. PSI Presi-dent, Hugh Barker, has stated that consumers (not the stockholders) =ust pay for PSI's mistakes, ands will have to make up a difference of 012 million each month construction of the nuclear plant is delayed.
The above data is only to furnish background information on this deplorable environ-mental and economic situation which renders captive consumers and taxpayers HILPLISS. Aside frcn the =iMionq of tax dollars _ support _ine the W < invol._ement_in_IM = pne unneeded.f -
v wanted nuclear _ plant,_ huge sums of money must be allocated for e=ergency plans in case of a nuclear accident. None of this has figured into the cost of the project.
But I as appealing to you, Mr. President, on a relaced catter which appears to have
.gone completely unnoticed in this 1:arble Hill fiasco.
It_ involves TSI's co-owner of.the._
1:arble Hill nuclear plant--the Wabash Valley _ Power. Association (WVPA) in Indianapolis, whose use of f~ederal tax dollars has enabled it2cwn 177..
O_n Dec. 28, 1977. I received a letter fro g. Richard P. ".ichter, Asst. Administrator-Ilectric, Rural Electrification Adainis-
.of Agriculture, informing me of_a5A.. loan guarantee commitment for tration, U.S. Dept.
financing a 17% undivided c:nershio interest by rabash Valley Pewer Association in the
.:arble Hill planc.
- 2. pdf c.
Ona -tragraph of the l'SDA-F.IA l'arble Hill Invironmental Impact Statement reads:
"The rish associated with accidental radiation exposure will be very low".
Please consider the absurdity of that statement after a hole 20 ft. long was found in concrete of a critical area of construction at Jarble Hill!
mo m
3' D
A 1318 N e
Carter 10, 1979
'Does undivided ownership also =can undivided responsibility and accountability?
On !qril 4, 1978, the Atocic Safety and Licensing Doard of the NRC (Elizabeth Bowers, Chairman) issue:i ene._Constructilin' ler i*
oting that.the PSA Loan Guarantee Co nitment to WPA was $36'37 634,003 to ~ acquire' 177 pndivided ownership in the ::arble Hill Cen-rating Station, Units 1 and 2.
Based on ti.a above figures, the total ~cest of the proja wi1 be approx. $2.12 billion, but in the March 1976 Draf t Environmental Impact Stat be e est.
economic costs of constructican and operation of Marble Hill at ti=e of first operation was listed as $1.355 billion (Table 10.3,.p. 10-9)!
At this late 1-our, it should be noted also that the initial request to build
- the Marble Hill nucleas facility (from the March 1976 Draf t EIS) was based on electrical energy needs of Public Service Indiana (657. co-ownership), Northern Indiana Public Service Co.
(207 co-ownership), with Kentucky-Indiana Municipal Power Assn., City of Richmond, Ind.,
East Kentucky Pcwcr Cooperative and Wabash Valley Power Assoq { tion as joint applicants for the 15% remaining ownership. However, all withdrew exEep
.dPA.
But this important change in the deter =ination of actual need for the plant was sidestepped by the ASI,3 of the NRC who proceaded as if it had never existed.
Over the years the RZA has done many fine thirgs for many people in its federal funding programs, but I do not believe Marble Hill is one of the=.
!!ill you please request a review of this P2A loan co=:.itzent?
^
~ -
'If this "more power at any price" rationale prevails at Marble Hill, surebj it is time to recognize a different energy crisis in our country--one.in which energ/ C?2ED of producers f ar outweighs energy NEED of consumers.
m h
Respectfully submitted,
-4%
Rosella Schroeder
\\b\\0 ' iO a
V Q-
~ CoMMONWCALTH OF KrNTUCKY OFFICE oF-THE ATToRN EY G ENERAL
....z. n..
RosERT F. STEPHENSI
'g1 FRANKFORT
^"caa *
, August 23, 1979 n
L.
a
~
~:
Victor
~'1.lo, Jr.,' Director Offict= or Inspection and Enforcement Ur,ted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 RE:
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc., et al.,
~
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. STN 50-546/547
Dear Mr. Stello:
This letter is in response to your " Orc'er Confirming Suspension of Construction", dated August 15, 1979.
We are very concerned about the construction problems uncovered at the Marble Hill.
Nuclear Generating Station site.
As the order states, some of the non-compliances are of long duration.
Others reflect faulty construction practices and inadequate inspections which could compromise the integrity of safety-related structures.
From what we know of the situation, the Commission was correct in confirming by order a halt to safety-related construction until PSI can demonstrate that it will comply with the quality as-surance criteria for nuclear power plants contained in Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
No balancing of economic or other factors should be considered by the Commission when violations of regulations concerning safety is discovered, for ".
[0]nce a regulation is adopted, the standards it embodies represents the Commission's definition of what is required to protect the public health and safety".
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB 138, RAI-73-7, 520, 528 (July, 19 73).
The allegations concerning attempts to withhold knowledge of defective concrete from inspectors and the new allegations of falsified test reports are even more distressing.
Criminal as well as civil proceedings should be instituted if these.'
allegations turn out to be true.
Even if there were no criminal acts committed, we do not understand why the Commission has not, to our knowledge, instituted a proceeding to assess civil penalties v ;$x(
e\\ \\ e 0
gx v
?s 1318 W
=..
Victor Ste.i'.o, Jr.
United Stat.as Nuclear Regulatory Comission August 23, 1979 Page Two
- c.
~
J. X. :.a O ^ ~ '. : '
pursuant' to 10 C'.71R. '2.205. - We~ believe the Commission should address this issue publicly.
We note that PSI prepared to go forward with construction several times this summer, only to stop work after finding additional deficiencies in its concrete work.
Based on this poor track record, we are concerned that PSI may receive permission from the Commission to resume work before it is capable of doing so in compliance with all Commission requirements.
Consequently, we will carefully review the submission by PSI under Part IV of the order and any Commission approval to resume safety-related con-struction, and will take appropriate legal action to review any Commission action we disagree with.
Since we believe it was proper to halt safety-related construction at the Marble Hill site, te do not seek a hearing under the terms of Part V of the order dated August. 15, 1979.
However, if a hearing is requested and held, we wish to participate in the hearing as an interested state pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.715(c).
Sincere:ly.-
~
ch Robert '
Stephens Attorney General 1318 :m
('
p-PUBLICS. X w-J,
S E R VI C f5 *' E 9 3 9 9 f # F 9
~ s peg T
2 INDIANA gQ 295 W" S. W. Shields Vice Premdent - Electric System August 30, 1979 s
iSxs 345 E. 47th Street New York, New York 10017 ATIENTION:
Er'. Gerry Eisenberg e
Secretary Gentlemen:
On August 6,1979, we submitted an inquiry concerning qualification as a Material Supplier. We withdraw that. inquiry as we have been able to resolve the question with the Chief Inspector of the State of Indiana.
However, another question has been raised regarding docu=entation of =aterial, and we would appreciate a response to the following inquiry:
Although NPT stamped piping subasse=blies were ordered from a Certificate Holder, sone pieces of straight pipe naterial were furnished to the job site. Documentation which is traceable to that caterial is being reviewed to assure compliance with the requirenents of NI-2000, the caterial specification, NCA-3800 and the Design Specifi-cation. If the Authorized Nuclear Inspector is satisified that the requirements of Section III have been met on the basis of this review, is the cateria'l acceptable for construction?
Very truly yours, d
SWS/kc cc:
D. J. Mcdonald, Na:L Boiler Bd.
R. R. Johnson, Ind. Boiler Bd.
W. G. Rein =uth, US NRC Victor Stello, Jr., US NRC J. G. K1ppler, US NRC 973g.q7g A. W. Henry, Hartford I)IO Uldis Potapovs, US NRC Arlene Spadafino, ASMs E. J. He==y, Corr.onwealth ' Edison 1000 East Main Street. Plainfield. Indiana 46168 317. 839.9611
s A..
7 m
g~
PUBLIC.
.a
'.- :.+ _...'
u
~ ~ ~~
SERVICE
+- +
^"9""* 31' 1878 S. W. Shields Vice Presdent - Dectric System Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Re:
Docket Nos. 50-546, 50-547
Dear Mr. Stello:
On behalf of Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
(" Licensees"),
I am submitting this letter in response to the " Order Con-firming Suspension of Construction" issued by you on August 15, 1979.
Licensees accept the terms and conditions set forth in part IV of your Order.
Licensees intend to comply fully with part IV and are working diligently to do so.
Since it is our intention to comply with part IV of your Order in all respects, Licensees do not contest the truth of the allegations contained in carts II and III of the Order.
With respect to taE items of noncompliance listed in Appendix A, it is oc" understanding that Appendix A contains preliminary findings that will be confirmed in formal correspondence and inspection reports to be issued by Region III.
Upon receipt of such formal identification of specific noncompliance items, Licensees will respond fully in accordance with the provisions of 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Part V of your Order creates the possibility of a public hearing concerning the validity of the Order.
Licensees see no need to conduct a public hearing and do not request h
one.
'"here are no issues' to be considered at such a hearing fj in view of the fact that Licensees agree that the Order W
3 i
hY, Y,q \\
(f.
l
]3]g q??
h 1000 East Ma;n S:reet. P:ainfield, Indiana 461 AE 317.839.9611
M..
.a
.5 I
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. Auge 1,
1979 PUBUC SERV;CE INotANA
~
should be. sustained and do not contest the facts upon which it is based.
Licensees, howec.er, reserve the right to respond to any request for a public hearir.g filed by a third
- party.
Sincerely,
/
d S.
W.
Shields SWS:ka cc:
Mr. James G.
Keppler Thomas M.
Dattilo, Esq.
Mr. John A.
Ryed O
G G
, N. $8, The SASSAFRAS AUDUBON SOCIETY x
4,4 -
\\
of LAWRENCE - GREENE - 3IONROE - BROWN -
SIORGAN & OWEN COUNTIES C
~,.
,1 Septembe'r 1,1979 e.
~
n
's f).D TO:
'iictor Stello, Jr., Directer
'N Office of Inspection and Enforcement United States Nuclear Regulatory Cocaission PE:
Public Service Indiana, Inc.
Docket Nos.
(Marble Hill Nuclear Generating STN 50-546 Station, Units 1 & 2)
STN 50-E47 A REQUEST FOR A HEARING ON ORDER CONFIRMING SUSPENSION OF CMTRUCT I
The ORDER CONFIRMING SUSPENSION OF CONSTRUCTION at Marble Hill, issued August 15, 1979, by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE), U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory Conaission, states (page 7) that any person whose interests may be af-fected by this order may request a hearing within 20 days of the date of the' order, and that.the issues to be considered at such a hearing shall be:
(1)
Whether the facts set forth in Parts II and III of the Order are true; and (2)
Whether the Order should be sustained.
j:
II The Order 1)
Confirms the stop work order.on all safety-related construction issued August 7,1979, by the licensee (Public Service Indiana) and cites in Sections II III, and Appendix A, nu:nerous instances of the licensee's noncoa.p,liance with Criteria of Append % B 10 CFR Part 50 of the Comission's regulations; refers to t..e in-spection of the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, June 12-14, 1979, at the Marble Hill site which re-suited in the Board's reco.mendation that the licensee's ASME Certificate of Authorization should be withdrawn and that the licensee should cease acting as a supplier of ASME Code cateri-
~
al to its subcontractors without ASME authorization; and notes the failure of the licensee to institute a quality assurance program for the construction of Marble Hill; 2)
Requires that the lice Director of Inspection vised quality.assuranc jg q9"- that safety-related co DUPLICATE DOCUMENT with Appendix B of 10 / tions; Ent.tre document previously entered into system under: ANO No. of pages:
[- ,,,Q; [ ~,. "{- .~ ~ THOMAS M. DxrnLO _ ATTCcNEY AT LAv 313 EAST JAAlH Sr.dET JAADlLCH. lHDIAMA 47250 _ ~. <. .... -+ ws ar2.:n.sess September 4, 1979 United. States Nuclear Regululatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 ~ . Attention: Mr." James G. Keppler, " Regional Director
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This writer did not receive a copy of the N.R.C. response to the Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation, which supposed-ly statc' that "an April inspection by N.R.C. personnel provided the first real eva.dence of a. serious breakdown in construction supervision (at Marble Hill). " See the Courier-Journal, Septembe 1, 1979. States News Service article by Charlie Green. Kindly advise if your office or any of your agents bad ~ notice in mid to late 1978 of the following: 1. That Newberg Construction Compariy was not following concrete specificat. ions, 2. That improper vibrations of concrete were taking place, and, 3. That United State's Testing was using some untrained personnel to test concrete.at Marble Hill. ~ This writer would appreciate a response under oath so that. there be no confusion or problems with the N.R.C. aiding in the criminal investigation of alleged " cover-up" at Marble Hill in connection witn the F.B.I. and the U.S. Jsttorney's Office for th. Southern District of Indiana. Further, according to the above States News Service article, "the N.R.C. added that.it sees no reason why P.S.I's organization cannot be strengthened to function acceptably." We intervenors have always had problems with, the lack of ob j e c tiv.'.ty, in our opinion, shown by the'N.R.C. in.its relation-ship with the nuclear power industry in general, and with P.S.I. % Yy ;<{s Y M 1318 9?C ccp '71979
I /m;....':[ .y ~. ~ United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1979 September 4, - ~ Page Two ... ~. ~..:.:. V,.~.-:-
- . - ~.,
in particular. Obviously, many discussions have occurred,'.behind ' .j 'f",.G _ %>>%%jf.g.;gg closed doors and will continue.
- .~ - ~',.'
This writer respectfully requests that you remove.yourself*; as the main invesLigative body of construction defects at Marble. Hill if your office cannot. espond ne6atively under' cath to,~.the. ,.J.f~#M... above question concerning N.R.C. knowledge in 1978. -d "- ....;.s., - Very truly yours, .a.- 3,/ w Aj. / L. JZ b Thomas M. Dattilo TMD/jmc cc: U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern - District of Indiana 1318
- 0
..:.. y,. 9. y"...;i,... .,,'
- u. m
..i7 e - ~: .. _. ~ - l ....,; -:.- ;. :.q
- ~.
3-%.. t i I t I i l w 4
$25 u aus,Anas-swa, ' smw P. O. &nc 556, Na %.q, DN an50 f .)C t oTdI.7& & $ A y2C-w ?/r Wu dyr w: 'p 79z. -r ~ 4 %dd 5, /s. 4 % ) 7%a'/w c~ wa a eofudQ
- / w yd % $1 %
,J
- f w~ n WW M' #f L0
/ u s s Gx - u o-ma k>fg yf w. O k n e
- L ' ' "
- p duM &72ddk-c
/A Vreaa'&ilVAy* &&'&ya ywJ V " " " " ',y, p~gsg7%y$w - 3,> g f % ecol =;L==L coe.aier.cz of CL:J., 94ud c<.d,.64<. Cow.tzu. N ~% C@: arc 74 90e nan sw ,a g a,s
n.'cris.<, ===~. 'aa " **eu wer. a,caur. r,:;':::. 2 - 5 ,f _'* ""* O NihETY-SIXTH CONGRESS 6 es. RosTesayEJg. PA. edAJoervyw Congrc#s of the tidnitch sbtates - " ~ ' " - " - i f)oudt of Etpresentatiben ENVIRONMENT ENERGY. AND NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE CF THE COMMITTEE ON GoVEPNMENT OPERATIONS RAYBURN HCLtSE CFFICE BUILDING.,tCCM D-371-84 WASHINGTON. D.C. MIS September 7, 1979 Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
On March 20, 1979, the NRC presented to the Congress a pro-posal for increased civil monetary penalties. Page 2 of this pro-posal contains the following language: In contrast to the large majority of licensees, however, a few major NRC licensees have been un-responsive. For example, several utilities have committed violations resulting in the imposition of multiple civil monetary penalties in the past few years. (T)he Commission believes that the few major NRC licensees who have not provided systematic lasting corrections in response to penalties issued under the. current limits might have responded more effectively to higher penal-ties. Higher civil penalty limits are needed to provide NRC with escalated enforcement sanctions short of license suspension for the few major licensees with records of significant non-compliance who have not responded to pen'alties under the existing authority." Please provide the Subcommittee with the following information: 1. The names of the "maj or NRC licensees" to which you referred as " unresponsive"; g 2. The names of the "several utilities [which] have
- k'i,,
committed violations resulting in the imposition of multiple civil. monetary penalties in the past h . # (; few years"; L i (n; c r~ r J}WDq\\ g) \\ 1318 W
C I Honorabic Joseph M. Hendrie Page Two 3. The names of the " major NRC licensees who have. not provided systematic lasting corrections in response to [ civil] penalties"; and, 4. The names of the " major licensees" to which you referred as having " records of significant non-compliance." This request is made pursuant to the following legal authorities: 1. Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Repre-sentatives; 2. Section 303 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and 3. 5 U.S.C. 2954. Congressmen Drinan, Maguire, Kostmayer, Synar, McCloskey and Deckard have authorized me to ' state that the above request is made, pursuant to this provision, on their behalf. Th'is request is properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Operations, as granted it by Rule X of the House of Representatives, and of this Subcommittee, as delegated to it by Rule 8 of the Rules of the Committee on Government Operations and by the a.ctions taken by the Committee on Government Operations at its organizational meeting for the Ninety-Sixth Congress on February 1, 1979. The Subcommittee would appreciate receiving your response to this request by September 21, 1979. Sinc
- ely, T by F offett Chaird an I
TM:bbm
V.,;&_- =:.== =~- ,*,f = 0 N!NETY SIXTH CONGRESS e-mn. % m 'T Congress of tfje Uniteb sbtates hottst Of 3tprt$ttItatibt$ ENYlRoNMENT. ENERGY, AND HATURAL RESOURCES ' ' ~,.., sUEcoMMITTEE ~. - or THE COMMITTEE oN GOVERNMENT oPERAT1oNS RAYSUMN HOVSC DmCE BUILDistG MOOM s.471M WASHINGTON. DJ::. 20s15 September 19, 1979 Honorable Joseph M. Hendric Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ~
Dear Chairman Hendrie:
~
In connection with the Subcommittee's ongoing investigation of construction problems at Public Service of Indiana.'s Marble Hill nuclear facility, I request that you provide us with the following information: (a) The name of each licensed U.S. comrsercial nuclear poweF plant in which Gust K. Newberg Construction Company or Gust K. Newberg, Inc. has been involved in any aspect of the construction, the nature of the work in which they were involved, and the' approximate dates on which the work was performed. (b) The name c>f each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant now under construction in which Gust K. Newberg Construction Company or Gust K. Newberg, Inc. has been involved, ' currently involved, or is expected to be i-alved in any aspect of the construction, the..ature of the work in which they were or will be involved, and the approximate dates on which the work was or will be performed. (c) The name of each licensed U.S. commercial nuclear power plant in which Sargent and Lundy has been involved in sny aspect of the construction, the nature of the work in which it was involved, and the approximate dates on which the work was per-formed. g\\.4 ,Q}
- \\
(d) The name of each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant now under construction in which Sargent \\{A ' y \\f[&q' \\ b 1318 M1
Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie September 19, 1979 page Two and Lundy has been involved, is currently involved, or is expected to be involved in any aspect of the construction, the nature of the work in which it was or will be involved, and the approximate dates on which the work was or will be performed. (e) The name of each licensed U.S. commercial nuclear power plant in which U.S. T.esting has been involved in any aspect of the construction, the nature of the work in which it was involved, and the approxi-mate dates on which the work was performed. The name of each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant (f)- now under construction in which U.S. Testing has been involved, is currently involved, or is expected to be involved in any aspect of the construction, the nature of the work in which it was or will be involved, and the approximate dates on which the work was or will be performed. This request is made pursuant to the following legal authorities: ~ 1. Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives; 2. Section 303 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and 3. 5 U.S.C. 2954. Congressman Drinan, Maguire, Kostnayer, Synar, McCloskey and Deckard have authorized me to state th at the above request is made, pursuant to this provision, on their behalfr This request is properly within the jurisdiction of the Connittee on Government Operations, as granted it by Rule X of the House of Representatives, and of this Subcommittee, as delegated to it by Rule 8 of the Rules of the Committee on Government Operations and by the actions taken by the Committee on Government Operations at its organization meeting for the Ninety-Sixth Congress on February 1, 1979. The Subcocnittee would appreciate receiving your response to this request by October.4, 1.979. f. 7:u Since _1y, g l T oy M ffet Ch air.. n g79 i3 ~ TM:bbc .}}